Conference Agenda

The public policy literature has extensively explored the conditions under which politicians abstain from direct involvement in policy design. However, we still know little about the strategies that policy entrepreneurs use to promote a policy when politicians are absent from the policy arena. Hence, the theoretical contribution of this research is in illustrating the strategies of policy entrepreneurs when politicians are not engaged in policy design. The empirical contribution of this research consists of collecting empirical evidence from various populations about policy design in the absence of the participation of politicians. Using 30 in-depth interviews, conducted between February 2024 and March 2025, with those involved in the "Roim Rachok" ("Looking Ahead") Program, designed to promote the inclusion of those on the autism spectrum in the Israel Defense Forces as a case study, our results indicate that this program is the first initiative of its kind in a mandatory military anywhere. It was developed and promoted by policy entrepreneurs without the involvement of politicians. The goal of the program was to integrate those on the autism spectrum into the military and, consequently, improve their future employment prospects. In addition, our results indicate that the policy entrepreneurs needed to deal with concerns about integrating those on the autism spectrum into security organizations. They also used various strategies to promote their initiative, including arguments about reducing costs and trust-building strategies with the military to overcome the absence of politicians in the design of the policy.

Frontline work is characterized by complex dynamics that challenge standardized decision-making models. Frontline workers must balance priorities among citizens, organizational goals, societal values, and sometimes their own health. These characteristics of frontline work have implications for management and accountability: How can frontline workers be held accountable when their work cannot always follow strict criteria, rules, and procedures but inherently also requires responsiveness and pragmatic improvisation? Existing scholarship has largely focused on frontline workers' multiple accountabilities. In addition, recent studies emphasize the role of frontline managers in supporting responsible discretion. However, how frontline managers handle accountability in their daily interactions with frontline workers remains underexplored.

This study addresses this gap by examining how frontline managers manage accountability demands in their relationships with frontline workers. Drawing on literature on frontline accountability and management, we develop a theoretical framework highlighting frontline managers' dual role as account holders and account givers. Empirically, we analyze qualitative interviews with frontline managers and frontline workers across multiple agencies, incorporating both perspectives to capture potential discrepancies between managerial intent and employee perception.

Our findings reveal that frontline managers handle accountability by requesting information, explanation, and justification, which are central to their practice. Specifically, they exhibit three key behaviors: fostering collective discretion, questioning decisions, and justifying decisions. These align, in part, with prior research on explicating reasoning and stimulating collective responsibility, as well as research on the mediating role of managers. Frontline managers tend to approve decisions as long as workers can explain and justify them, allowing managers to relay these justifications to their superiors. We conceptualize this process as "narrative accountability," a practice that enables managers to articulate frontline practices beyond quantitative measures, thus strengthening their ability to advocate for frontline workers.

This study makes several contributions. First, it expands the literature on frontline accountability by centering on frontline managers, a crucial yet underexamined group, demonstrating how they shape accountability in practice. Second, it highlights the significance of narrative accountability as both a concept and practice, complicating traditional vertical and horizontal accountability distinctions by introducing informal elements into formal structures. Third, it enriches understandings of frontline managers' roles, particularly in ensuring responsible discretion and acting as boundary spanners and mediators. Lastly, our findings suggest that narrative accountability is a shared practice across different settings, reflective of professional norms. We propose a more practice-oriented approach to frontline accountability, supplementing existing behavior-focused models.

Silence among street-level bureaucrats in China has become increasingly prevalent, with important implications for local governance and public service delivery. However, most existing studies focus on the private sector or adopt Western-developed silence measurement, lacking conceptual and empirical grounding in public administration settings. To address this gap, we draw on street-level bureaucracy theory and employ an exploratory sequential mixed methods design to conceptualize and measure silence behavior among street-level bureaucrats. Based on qualitative interviews with 23 grassroots civil servants, we identified four distinct dimensions of silence: organizational-institutional, individual-inhibitory, relationship-based, and socially-pressured. These dimensions informed the development of a multidimensional scale, which was validated with a sample of 240 street-level bureaucrats. We then conduct a second survey with 321 respondents to examine the behavioral implications of silence. Results show that silence behavior is positively associated with job burnout, and psychological capital mediates this relationship. Our findings highlight the distinct characteristics of bureaucratic silence in public sector and offer a validated measurement tool for future research on street-level behavior and employee outcomes in governance contexts.

Public organizations are increasingly confronted with societal demands and political pressures that shape civil servants’ decision-making, managerial practices, and policy implementation. These challenges influence how bureaucrats navigate frontline complexities and communicate crucial information upwards within their organizations. While research on street-level bureaucracy has extensively examined the determinants of discretionary practices, the organizational factors shaping bureaucrats’ willingness to voice concerns to higher hierarchical levels remain underexplored. Addressing this gap is essential, as effective upward communication can help address policy implementation gaps, foster organizational learning, and enhance implementation and innovation processes.

This study investigates the organizational conditions that facilitate upward voicing attitudes among bureaucrats. Specifically, it addresses the question: Which organizational factors influence bureaucrats’ perceptions of their ability to communicate insights and concerns to higher levels? Using survey data from 5,975 bureaucrats in the Swiss education sector, we find that effective internal communication and trust—both among peers and in managerial leadership—positively correlate with bureaucrats' willingness to voice concerns upward. Notably, among street-level bureaucrats (SLBs), peer trust alone is insufficient—confidence in managerial leadership is a key enabler of upward communication.

Our findings contribute to the theory of street-level decision-making by identifying the organizational conditions that empower bureaucrats at different hierarchical levels to share information within their agencies. Moreover, by proposing and testing a novel analytical framework to assess bottom-up communication in public organizations, we provide new insights into its role in policy implementation, organizational responsiveness, and service delivery effectiveness in contemporary bureaucracies.